tie_whoami

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the data comes from the API key, which implies no separate login flow, and the verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or describe error handling for invalid keys, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple no-argument tool, the description is complete: it states the returned information (identity, roles, permissions) and the source (API key). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return value's nature for the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents argument expectations. The description adds no parameter details but this is unnecessary; a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's identity, roles, and permissions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which all focus on data listings, scoring, or actions rather than user context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve current user info) and notes the API key as the source, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool serves this purpose, the guidance is adequate without being explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.